Appeal No. 2002-1904
Application No. 09/156,540
Schmoll 5,911,636 Jun. 15, 1999
(filed Jan. 16, 1998)
Butler et al. (Butler) 5,951,410 Sep. 14, 1999
(filed Jan. 3, 1997)
Claims 1, 2, 9, 16, 23, 28, and 31-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Nesbit, Schmoll, and Butler.
Claims 3-8, 10-15, 17-22, 24-27, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Nesbit, Schmoll, Gobush, and Butler.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 7) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 12) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No. 11) and
the Reply Brief (Paper No. 14) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which
stand rejected.
OPINION
Grouping of claims
Appellants submit (Brief at 4-5) that the claims stand or fall together with respect
to the first ground of rejection, but assert three separate groups of claims to be argued
in response to the second ground of rejection. Accordingly, we select claim 16 as
representative in our consideration of the first ground of rejection, and claims 17, 21,
and 7 as representative with respect to the second ground. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007